Titlebook: D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination; Essays on Sexual Ide Peter Balbert Book 1989 Peter Balbert 1989 David Herbert Lawrence.feminism

ALOOF

书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination影响因子(影响力)




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination影响因子(影响力)学科排名




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination网络公开度




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination网络公开度学科排名




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination被引频次




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination被引频次学科排名




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination年度引用




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination年度引用学科排名




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination读者反馈




书目名称D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination读者反馈学科排名

即席

M. C. Ruiz,I. Gonzalez,J. Salgado,R. Padilla Frank Kermode, Julian Moynahan, and Charles Ross, is there a significant implication that her function in the work and her attachment to Birkin are other than subsidiary or tangential; even their acknowledgements of her resistance to Birkin’s doctrines do not suggest that she provides any compellin

Blanch

Shijie Wang,Michael L Free,Patrick R. Taylorrations in . (1970), when she closes her chapter on Lawrence with a roll-call assault on the reputed ‘ethics’ in ‘The Woman Who Rode Away’; she concludes with the charge that the work is merely ‘pandering to pornographic dream’, and that it ‘would reward a careful comparative reading with .; in a nu

Clinch

Ringworm

Introduction,king links in a progressively developed thesis; rather, each essay functions as a contributing piece of evidence, employing similar methods of critical investigation and pointing towards a verdict that highlights the profundity of Lawrence’s achievement and the inadequacy of many recent commentaries

表被动

,Ursula Brangwen and ‘The Essential Criticism’: The Female Corrective in Women in Love, Frank Kermode, Julian Moynahan, and Charles Ross, is there a significant implication that her function in the work and her attachment to Birkin are other than subsidiary or tangential; even their acknowledgements of her resistance to Birkin’s doctrines do not suggest that she provides any compellin

表被动

,Snake’s Eye and Obsidian Knife: Art, Ideology, and ‘The Woman Who Rode Away’,rations in . (1970), when she closes her chapter on Lawrence with a roll-call assault on the reputed ‘ethics’ in ‘The Woman Who Rode Away’; she concludes with the charge that the work is merely ‘pandering to pornographic dream’, and that it ‘would reward a careful comparative reading with .; in a nu

patriot

Feminist Displeasure and the Loving of Lady Chatterley: Lawrence, Hemingway, Mailer, and the Dialece body of men and women today is just a trained dog. And of no one is this more true than of the free and emancipated young. Above all, their bodies are the bodies of trained dogs.’. Thus not surprisingly today, considerable feminist displeasure often is directed at the structure, premises, and ethi

使隔离

Introduction,my argument is based on an integrated analysis of Lawrence’s artistic technique and informing doctrine, with the underlying unity of his poetic intuition and philosophic thought always the prime concern. This organic methodology — an approach surely consistent with Lawrence’s claims as a visionary a

Prognosis

Forging and Feminism: Sons and Lovers and the Phallic Imagination, of masculine assertion and independence is widely regarded as inappropriate to the fashionable androgyny of contemporary culture. Clearly, this early work is a hymn to the phallus, as the shape of . — from plot to moralism to metaphor — reflects Lawrence’s purging effort, as artist and prophet, to